Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Core 9 273PQE versus the Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL. The head-to-head matrix is empty, and the win counts for both processors are zero. This means there is no recorded data where both CPUs ran the identical test suite under the same conditions. The absence of direct comparisons is itself informative: the two chips occupy different performance tiers, and their benchmark profiles were collected separately.

What can be established is the Core 9 273PQE’s standalone benchmark scores, which place it at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 66099. The Core Ultra 5 125UL, by contrast, has no recorded benchmarks and sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero. The percentile gap of 43 points reflects a substantial separation in measured capability.

For the Core 9 273PQE, the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39190 indicates strong parallel throughput, while the single-core score of 5532 shows high per-thread performance. The Cinebench R20 results follow the same pattern: 16459 multicore and 2323 single-core. In PassMark tests, the processor delivers 46107 in multithread, 4573 in single-thread, 164629 in integer math, and 125546 in floating-point math. Data compression scores 585752, encryption 29636, and extended instructions 38743. Physics processing records 2754, prime number finding 198, and random string sorting 53167.

The nearest rivals for the Core 9 273PQE in the database provide context. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average score of 66159, which is 0.1% higher than the 273PQE’s 66099. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D scores 65914, 0.3% lower. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus averages 66855, 1.1% higher, and the AMD EPYC 4465P averages 66925, 1.2% higher. These deltas are small, indicating the 273PQE sits in a tightly contested band where the top competitors are within roughly one point percent of each other.

The Core Ultra 5 125UL has no rivals listed in the database, which means no comparative scores exist for it at all. Its percentile of 50 suggests it lands in the middle of the distribution, but without benchmark data, the exact nature of that placement cannot be quantified. The contrast between a fully measured processor and one with no measurements is stark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge at the architectural level in nearly every major component. The Core 9 273PQE belongs to the Bartlett Lake codename family, with the generation listed as “Core 9 (Bartlett Lake).” Its process node is 10 nm, fabricated by Intel. The Core Ultra 5 125UL uses the Meteor Lake architecture, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS codename, and its process node is 7 nm, also from Intel. The smaller process node on the 125UL suggests a more recent manufacturing approach, though the 273PQE compensates with higher clock speeds.

Core counts are identical at 12 cores each, but thread counts differ significantly. The 273PQE supports 24 threads, while the 125UL supports 14 threads. This means the 273PQE enables simultaneous multithreading on all cores, whereas the 125UL has fewer threads than cores, indicating a hybrid design where some cores do not support additional threads. The base clock of the 273PQE is 3.40 GHz, compared to 1.30 GHz on the 125UL. Boost clocks show a similar gap: 5.90 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Cache hierarchies differ in capacity and allocation. The 273PQE has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, while the 125UL has 112 KB per core. Both have 2 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is a major differentiator: 36 MB shared on the 273PQE versus 12 MB shared on the 125UL. That threefold difference in L3 capacity likely contributes to the performance gap in memory-sensitive workloads.

Memory support also differs. The 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 125UL supports DDR5 only, with the database noting that support depends on the motherboard. Both use dual-channel memory buses and share the same memory bandwidth figure of 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the 273PQE but not on the 125UL. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the 273PQE provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the 125UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics are different. The 273PQE uses UHD Graphics 770, while the 125UL uses Arc Xe-LPG 64EU. The sockets are incompatible: the 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the 125UL uses Intel Socket 1851. Power targets also differ, with the 273PQE at 125 watts TDP and the 125UL at 15 watts TDP, a gap that explains much of the performance difference but also positions the 125UL for low-power applications.

Release dates and pricing differ as well. The 273PQE was released on 2026-03-08 with a launch MSRP of $589. The 125UL was released on 2024-04-07 with a launch MSRP of $309. Both have locked multipliers, meaning neither supports unlocked overclocking. The part numbers are SA4Q9 for the 273PQE and SRN96 for the 125UL.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE wins in every measurable performance category because it is the only one of the two with recorded benchmarks. Its 93rd percentile placement among all CPUs indicates top-tier performance. The 125UL has no benchmark scores, so it cannot claim any measured wins. The closest the database comes to a win for the 125UL is its architectural efficiency: a 15 watt TDP, a smaller 7 nm process node, and a lower release price.

For multithreaded workloads, the 273PQE delivers 24 threads at boost clocks up to 5.90 GHz, paired with 36 MB of L3 cache. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39190 and PassMark multithread score of 46107 support this. For single-threaded tasks, the 273PQE’s boost clock of 5.90 GHz and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5532 indicate strong responsiveness.

The 125UL, with 14 threads and a 4.30 GHz boost clock, targets a different use case. Its 15 watt TDP and 7 nm process node suggest a focus on energy efficiency rather than raw throughput. The Arc Xe-LPG 64EU integrated graphics could provide better visual output than UHD Graphics 770 in certain scenarios, though no benchmark data confirms this.

The 273PQE supports ECC memory, which matters for systems requiring error correction, such as entry-level servers or workstations. The 125UL does not. The 273PQE also supports DDR4, which may be relevant for users upgrading existing systems. The 125UL’s DDR5-only support narrows its compatibility.

The 273PQE’s PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes provides more bandwidth for expansion cards and NVMe storage compared to the 125UL’s PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes. For storage-heavy or GPU-intensive applications, the 273PQE has a clear advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has all recorded benchmark scores, including a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 39190 and a single-core score of 5532. The Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL has no benchmark scores in the database.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: Both have 12 cores, but the Core 9 273PQE has 24 threads while the Core Ultra 5 125UL has 14 threads.

Q: What is the cache difference?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL has 12 MB. L1 cache is 80 KB per core on the 273PQE and 112 KB per core on the 125UL. Both have 2 MB L2 per core.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 125UL does not.

Q: What sockets do the two processors use?

A: The Core 9 273PQE uses Intel Socket 1700, and the Core Ultra 5 125UL uses Intel Socket 1851. They are not interchangeable.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4?

A: The Core 9 273PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 5 125UL supports DDR5 only.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 9 273PQE | Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL |

|----------------|---------------------|--------------------------|

| Threads | 24 | 14 |

| Base clock | 3.40 GHz | 1.30 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.90 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 112 KB per core |

| L3 cache | 36 MB shared | 12 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 only |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Arc Xe-LPG 64EU |

| Release date | 2026-03-08 | 2024-04-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $589 | $309 |

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is a fully measured processor that ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 66099. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, are all within 1.2% of its score, meaning the 273PQE competes at the top of the desktop processor market.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 125UL has no benchmark scores, no nearest rivals, and a 50th percentile rating. It cannot be compared directly on performance. Its strengths lie in its 15 watt TDP, 7 nm process node, and lower launch MSRP. Those characteristics point toward low-power desktop systems where energy consumption and thermal output are prioritized over raw compute.

For users who need maximum throughput, the 273PQE is the only choice supported by measured data. Its 24 threads, 5.90 GHz boost clock, 36 MB L3 cache, ECC support, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity make it suitable for heavy parallel workloads, data processing, and systems requiring error correction. The 125UL, on the other hand, suits scenarios where efficiency is paramount and benchmark performance is not the primary criterion.

The database records no overlap in their measured capabilities. The 273PQE leads in every recorded metric, while the 125UL offers architectural advantages in power and process technology. The decision between them depends on whether the requirement is maximum performance, as measured by the benchmarks, or minimum power draw, as indicated by the TDP figures.